• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Swissgov presentation 23rd September 2010
 

Swissgov presentation 23rd September 2010

on

  • 1,492 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,492
Views on SlideShare
1,419
Embed Views
73

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
10
Comments
0

2 Embeds 73

http://egov20.wordpress.com 72
http://ictlogy.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Each of this levels has a particular role in e-government

Swissgov presentation 23rd September 2010 Swissgov presentation 23rd September 2010 Presentation Transcript

  • Gov2.0 in Switzerland: from conversation to action
    • Federal Veterinary Office Event - #fibosimo
    • 23 rd September 2010
    • David Osimo
    • Tech4i2 ltd.
  • Structure of the talk
    • What is government 2.0
    • Some examples
    • The benefits and limits of government 2.0
    • What to do
  • So far ICT has not fundamentally changed government
    • 1990s: ICT expected to make government more transparent, efficient and user oriented
    • 2005+: disillusion as burocracy not much different from 19 th century Max Weber’s description
    Supply Demand
  • Relevant for key government activities source: “Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How? www.jrc.es Back office Front office Regulation Cross-agency collaboration Knowledge management Interoperability Human resources mgmt Public procurement Service delivery eParticipation Law enforcement Public sector information Public communication Transparency and accountability
  • Technologies… Blogs Wordpress, Movable Type, Blogger, Typepad Wikis Wikipedia, Twiki, Confluence, SocialText Syndication RSS, Atom News feed aggregation Google Reader, Bloglines, NewsGator Personal dashboards / mashups Netvibes, MyYahoo, iGoogle, Yahoo Pipes Bookmarking / Tagging Delicious, Cogenz, ConnectBeam Micro-blogging/messaging Twitter, Yammer, Socialtext Signals Instant messaging Sametime, MSN, Skype  Social Networking Platforms (Enterprise) Facebook, Bebo, Myspace, Tuenti, Netlog IBM (Lotus Connections), Socialtext Confluence, Jive (Social Business Software) Thoughtfarmer, Microsoft (Office Sharepoint Server 2007), Oracle (Beehive), Incentivelive, Salesforce Chatter Prediction Markets Consensus Point, Inkling Ideas banks Uservoice, Ideascale
  • Values, not only tools
  • Examples of gov20 adoption by government
  • Policy blog
    • Maintaining conversations with key stakeholders, and reaching out beyond the usual suspect
    • http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/innovationunlimited/
  • The wikipedia of FBI and CIA
    • Created to prevent a new 9-11
    • Used by 16 US security agencies – on a super-secure intranet (not public)
    • Based on wikipedia software
    • Used by two-thirds of the analysts, esp. ever younger workforce. Flat, informal cooperation
    • Each day, 50 to 100 new articles posted and 3,000 to 6,000 articles edited by users.
    • Makes collaboration by individual and agency traceable and measurable
    • Also: mash-up tools enable analysts to bring together different applications and data
    • Successes:
      • Main tool used in constructing a National Intelligence Estimate on Nigeria
      • Quickly detected how Iraqi insurgents were using chlorine in explosives
    • Risks:
      • too much information sharing, and cultural resistance
      • BUT it’s “worth it”: "the key is risk management, not risk avoidance."
  • Bottom-up self-organisation
  • Citizens reporters
  • Open data
  • Open Innovation in public services
  •  
  • Innovating government from the outside in Jose Alonso, W3c
  • Analysis
  • It’s not about total participation Source: IPTS estimation based on Eurostat, IPSOS-MORI, Forrester
    • 4.Providing attention, taste data
    • 3.Using user-generated content
    • 2.Providing ratings, reviews
    • 1.Producing content
    100% 3% 40% of Internet users (50% of EU population) 10%
  • Why does gov20 matter?
    • Because it does not impose change (e-gov 1.0) but acts on leverages , drivers and incentives:
    • reducing the cost of collective action : innovation without permission
    • building on unique and specific knowledge of citizens and civil servants : the “cognitive surplus”
    • the power of visualization
    • reducing information and power asymmetries
    • peer recognition rather than hierarchy
    • changing the expectations of citizens
  • Views from the field
    • “ There are more smart people outside government than within it” (Bill Joy)
    • “ the coolest thing to do with your data will be thought of by someone else” (Rufus Pollock)
    • “ A problem shared is a problem halved ...and a pressure group created” (Paul Hodgkin – PatientOpinion.com)
    • “ it’s about pressure points, chinks in the armour where improvements might be possible, whether with the consent of government or not” (Tom Steinberg, Mysociety.org)
    • “ many participants in the process dilute the effect of bad apples or unconstructive participants” (Beth Noveck, Peertopatent.org)
  • The risks and governance of gov20
    • Between no participation and information overload
    • Conflictual content? The role of moderation
    • Representativeness vs relevance
    • The bosses: do we need permission?
  • The limits of transparency
    • Most countries don’t have MySociety.org or Sunlightfoundation.org
    • Government 2.0 services and websites are used by a minority of citizens
    • Without attention and civic culture, transparency is unlikely to generate change
  • We should design gov 2.0 for Bart, not only for Lisa Hat tip: Carter and Dance, Nytimes.com
    • “ with the ideal of naked transparency alone--our democracy, like the music industry and print journalism generally, is doomed. The Web will show us every possible influence. The most cynical will be the most salient. Limited attention span will assure that the most salient is the most stable. Unwarranted conclusions will be drawn, careers will be destroyed, alienation will grow.”
    Lawrence Lessig, 2009. Against Transparency
  • It’s a gradual process: from a static to a dynamic vision
    • Attention and civic culture are not fixed
    • Visualisation increases participation
    • Conversations increase trust
    • Game and social dimension increases participation
    • Transparency builds civic culture
  • What to do?
    • Do no harm
    • Open data
    • Competitions for innovation
    • Education, education, education
    • Start playing with it
  • Thank you
    • [email_address]
    • @osimod
    • http://egov20.wordpress.com
    • Further information:
    • Osimo, 2008. Web2.0 in government: why and how? www.jrc.es
    • Osimo, 2008. Benchmarking e-government in the web 2.0 era: what to measure, and how . European Journal of ePractice, August 2008.
  • Maplight.org
  •  
  • Jose Alonso, W3c